NRA

[bobblehead]

Amen, Bobble.

I've come a long way since I voted for Clinton in '92.

Well, at least I wasn't the only one fooled. I guess thats why in the campaign season you and I specifically remembered which campaign promises Clinton broke when he returned to tax and spend the day after the election. Fool me once......

The defense I always use is that I was 23, young and naive, and freshly indoctrinated from UW-XYZ.

[Little Whiskey]

[quote="packinpatland"]

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

neither does owning a gun......any gun. thats the point. its what people do with there right. just ask Jim Jones and david koresh

[mraynrand]

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

Allah Akbar!!!

[Freak Out]

There goes the thread.

[Little Whiskey]

but really show how religion has killed people. no one has shown me yet

[retailguy]

but really show how religion has killed people. no one has shown me yet

lol :P

[mraynrand]

but really show how religion has killed people. no one has shown me yet

This man was done in by a brutally boring sermon

[Patler]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

The vast majority of those who own weapons of any type will never go out an kill someone with it. Those that do are really no different than James Jones or fundamentalists in any religion who find it necessary to kill nonbelievers or their followers in the name of their religion.

Time and again people mis-using the practice of their religion have killed or been killed. How is that any different than someone mis-using their right to own a gun?

[hoosier]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

The vast majority of those who own weapons of any type will never go out an kill someone with it. Those that do are really no different than James Jones or fundamentalists in any religion who find it necessary to kill nonbelievers or their followers in the name of their religion.

Time and again people mis-using the practice of their religion have killed or been killed. How is that any different than someone mis-using their right to own a gun?

I can answer this one: I think it's just a little bit harder to argue that you're "misuing" a gun when you kill someone with it.

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

[mraynrand]

I think it's just a little bit harder to argue that you're "misuing" a gun when you kill someone with it.

You're not misusing the gun, you're misusing your right to use a gun (and taking away the rights of another), if you murder someone using a gun (or using your hands, a knife, a commercial jet, etc).

[retailguy]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

[Patler]

Re: NRA

The topic as the thread started was an assertion that the murder of the police officer by the deranged individual with an AK-47 was reason to not support the NRA. Here is the initial post:

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support the NRA, here it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/04/...hot/index.html

I guess what we really should be debating is what the NRA stands for, what it does both "good" and "bad" in our opinions.

[mraynrand]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

[retailguy]

yeah, I forgot about the NRA part.... The NRA is evil because some idiot used an illegal weapon to kill 13 people. Or, at least thats one of the things I got from it.